It's not verified by a reference, so it could just as easily be an editor's presumption as a fact.

Anyway, the Wiki article conflicts with your own position though, It says: "In the event where a player is eligible to play for multiple nations, he is only 'cap-tied' to a nation after playing for its senior team in an official competition, or having played in an official competition at youth level and later submitting a request to change national association with FIFA."

Yes, and there are numerous examples.

Who are the examples? We had assumed Bobby Zamora was an example at one point due to media reports but he isn't on the database of players who've requested a switch to which Yann has access.

Even just use plain common sense.
Why do you think there is all the rumpus about capping a player in a senior competitive game in order to get a player tied.
That's the gilded criteria.

That's undoubtedly what ties him to an original association, but I don't see why it should necessarily follow or be assumed that that's what will make a switch irreversible.

Rafinha played for Spain, switched to Brazil, but still eligible to declare for France

Did FIFA approve a formal switch for Rafinha from Spain to Brazil, but you believe he'd be able to request another switch from Brazil to France because he has only represented Brazil in senior friendly games or are you saying that FIFA would regard a future request from Rafinha as constituting a transfer-request between Spain and France because the player hasn't really performed or effected a switch to Brazil yet?

When he says: "For me, eligibility is not and should not be a political issue. Nor should it be a religious issue. For me, eligibility should be a football issue."

What does that even mean? Eligibility is a national identity issue because national identity is the foundation of national teams.

He also said: "The FAI correctly states that it has broken no rules in approaching young Northern Ireland players in requesting they switch allegiance to the Republic of Ireland."

This is baloney too. The FAI don't "request" players to switch. It's the player who makes the request. The FAI might make an enquiry and can facilitate a player's wishes, but they can't demand that he switches. I can only assume this is just further misleading and accusatory terminology employed to curry favour with hard-line NI fans.

I also thought this bit was funny: "During a recent interview, I was questioned about the issue of eligibility. Contrary to how it was reported, I did not attack the FAI, I merely responded to the questions I was asked."

He says that is if it isn't possible to attack someone in an answer to a question.

He also complains that "[t]he Irish FA invests thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of pounds in our club NI programme", but his desire to have the players' right to switch restricted until after the age of 21 would only result in the IFA having spent more money on a player whose ultimate aspiration might have been to play for the FAI, if that player does indeed end up switching after 21. Besides, the IFA receive money from the public purse; a very significant portion of that is money from the nationalist community. As a collective, we're more than happy to see players from our community declare for Ireland having been trained with our money too.

The following appears to conflict with his "cautionary" tone for potential switchers the previous week: "While it is a player's right to choose to play for the Republic of Ireland at underage level, such a decision means that another young player will have missed out on an opportunity to be part of our elite performance pathway and another player in the FAI's system will miss out on selection."

Last week, he was saying the players who switched were then pretty much abandoned by the FAI after switching and exampled Hale and Brown (despite both having been in FAI squads), but now he's purportedly trying to make an appeal for the interests of players who are already in the FAI's set-up to be considered because he's claiming they'll miss out on account of the incoming switching players. Which is it? I'm rather suspicious of this apparent concern for FAI players. It would appear to me that he is professing concern for young players in order to win sympathy for what are ultimately his own interests and those of his association. It's a bit like the old "won't somebody think of the children?" plea. Rather conveniently, O'Neill would have us believe that the best interests of young players just so happen to align with the interests of Michael O'Neill and the IFA. Hmm...

If O'Neill wishes to see limits placed on the rights of players to switch, he needs to petition FIFA. There's no point pointing the finger at the FAI. I don't think FIFA will have much sympathy with what he's saying though because it would reverse the trend whereby a right (for a dual or multi-eligible player) to switch association once by the age of 21 was introduced in 2004 and that age-cap of 21 was lifted in 2009. I don't see FIFA back-tracking on these sorts of rights in an increasingly globalised world. After all, the right to switch was to protect young players from self-interested associations.

It also must be asked, why should the IFA have some sort of exclusive claim over players aged 17-21 who are also eligible for another association? No other association enjoys such a privilege.

Thanks From:

Seamas O'Reilly was on the Second Captains podcast to discuss this point (along with Alistair Campbell's new book). Whilst being an Ireland supporter from Derry he was quite balanced in his assessment. I think the conclusion drawn from the conversation between him and Ken Earley was that Michael O'Neill should have known better with the loaded insinuations he was making and should have known more than better that identifying a lad from up North as Catholic is as inter-changeable with Nationalist.

Seamas O'Reilly was on the Second Captains podcast to discuss this...Whilst being an Ireland supporter from Derry he was quite balanced in his assessment. I think the conclusion drawn from the conversation between him and Ken Early was that Michael O'Neill should have known better with the loaded insinuations he was making and should have known more than better that identifying a lad from up North as Catholic is as inter-changeable with Nationalist

Michael's judgement has been poor. We (IFA, NI fans, media etc) need to accept the reality that the FAI can pick these guys within the rules. Little to be gained by gurning about it. The references to Catholics are silly as well as likely to offend- we all know Marty would pick a team from the Shankill plus Kevin Kraftwerk and Phelan O'Dutchman if they were good enough and available...

The wider problem's probably insoluble (not least as a majority of our fans think you're running some sort of press gang and a majority of yours think our team shouldn't exist). Best we can hope for is detente?

There's already a 'Hibernian Warriors' (SOR's suggested all Ireland team name), albeit bulked out by mercenary Angles and Caledonians. And they just keep being walloped by marauding hordes of Jutes and Saxons

But Michael has recurring poor judgement in relation to comments aimed at the FAI. The sceptic may believe this poor judgement is encouraged by his employers, they certainly are not discouraging speaking in a personal capacity on the matter.

Is this true? I don't think I've ever had a discussion with a football fan about the existence of the NI football team. Do they think it shouldn't exist because the UK shouldn't have 4 teams or because of a desire for a united Ireland?

When he says: "For me, eligibility is not and should not be a political issue. Nor should it be a religious issue. For me, eligibility should be a football issue."

What does that even mean? Eligibility is a national identity issue because national identity is the foundation of national teams.

He also said: "The FAI correctly states that it has broken no rules in approaching young Northern Ireland players in requesting they switch allegiance to the Republic of Ireland."

This is baloney too. The FAI doesn't "request" players to switch. It's the player who makes the request. The FAI might make an enquiry and can facilitate a player's wishes, but they can't demand that he switches. I can only assume this is just further misleading and accusatory terminology employed to curry favour with hard-line NI fans.

I also thought this bit was funny: "During a recent interview, I was questioned about the issue of eligibility. Contrary to how it was reported, I did not attack the FAI, I merely responded to the questions I was asked."

He says that is if it isn't possible to attack someone in an answer to a question.

He also complains that "[t]he Irish FA invests thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of pounds in our club NI programme", but his desire to have the players' right to switch restricted until after the age of 21 would only result in the IFA having spent more money on a player whose ultimate aspiration might have been to play for the FAI, if that player does indeed end up switching after 21. Besides, the IFA receive money from the public purse; a very significant portion of that is money from the nationalist community. As a collective, we're more than happy to see players from our community declare for Ireland having been trained with our money too.

The following appears to conflict with his "cautionary" tone for potential switchers the previous week: "While it is a player's right to choose to play for the Republic of Ireland at underage level, such a decision means that another young player will have missed out on an opportunity to be part of our elite performance pathway and another player in the FAI's system will miss out on selection."

Last week, he was saying the players who switched were then pretty much abandoned by the FAI after switching and exampled Hale and Brown (despite both having been in FAI squads), but now he's purportedly trying to make an appeal for the interests of players who are already in the FAI's set-up to be considered because he's claiming they'll miss out on account of the incoming switching players. Which is it? I'm rather suspicious of this apparent concern for FAI players. It would appear to me that he is professing concern for young players in order to win sympathy for what are ultimately his own interests and those of his association. It's a bit like the old "won't somebody think of the children?" plea. Rather conveniently, O'Neill would have us believe that the best interests of young players just so happen to align with the interests of Michael O'Neill and the IFA. Hmm...

If O'Neill wishes to see limits placed on the rights of players to switch, he needs to petition FIFA. There's no point pointing the finger at the FAI. I don't think FIFA will have much sympathy with what he's saying though because it would reverse the trend whereby a right (for a dual or multi-eligible player) to switch association once by the age of 21 was introduced in 2004 and that age-cap of 21 was lifted in 2009. I don't see FIFA back-tracking on these sorts of rights in an increasingly globalised world. After all, the right to switch was to protect young players from self-interested associations.

It also must be asked, why should the IFA have some sort of exclusive claim over players aged 17-21 who are also eligible for another association? No other association enjoys such a privilege.

The most worrying thing about the statement is that is obvious Michael did not write it, but it was a prepared IFA statement that he read out, uncomfortably, and since it was put together by IFA personnel it further highlights their inability to correctly understand the situation, in their attempt to spin their way out of the difficulties O'neill left them in.

Is this true? I don't think I've ever had a discussion with a football fan about the existence of the NI football team

It's backed by widespread polling. For example RTE in November last year, around the play-offs. 70% preferred an all-Ireland side, by which presumably they mean other than the one that already exists as referred above. I imagine the latter has almost 100% support

Of course the question always specifies or implies that such a change would be with the agreement of NI fans, rather than imposed on the nasty bigots. Which is obviously a non-starter: we aren't going to agree to our team's disappearance. Respondents with any knowledge of the issue must realise this, but would rather play dumb than admit to their own bias

Do they not think it should exist because the UK shouldn't have 4 teams or because of a desire for a united Ireland?

I imagine it's the latter. The average Joe on the Cabinteely omnibus has no problem with Scotland, Wales or the Faroes having their own teams

I've no idea of Smyth or Lewis's longer term ambitions, but in reality their most likely short-term highlight is a full NI cap in the March/ May friendlies. That's inevitable while our teams are of similar standard but one has a much smaller pool to draw on.

How do you read Smyth remaining in your u21s ? Bit of fire to go with the smoke maybe ?

It's backed by widespread polling. For example RTE in November last year, around the play-offs. 70% preferred an all-Ireland side, by which presumably they mean other than the one that already exists as referred above. I imagine the latter has almost 100% support

Of course the question always specifies or implies that such a change would be with the agreement of NI fans, rather than imposed on the nasty bigots. Which is obviously a non-starter: we aren't going to agree to our team's disappearance. Respondents with any knowledge of the issue must realise this, but would rather play dumb than admit to their own bias

I imagine it's the latter. The average Joe on the Cabinteely omnibus has no problem with Scotland, Wales or the Faroes having their own teams

How do you read Smyth remaining in your u21s ? Bit of fire to go with the smoke maybe ?

Fire would be him declining both of our teams surely?

Michael's squad is pretty conservative. The only new players are Jamal Lewis to replace the probably retiring Brunt and two reserve keepers. I wouldn't have been that surprised if Smyth had been there but that would have meant dropping probably one of McGinn or Ward. Both past their peak but still key players for us.

It's backed by widespread polling. For example RTE in November last year, around the play-offs. 70% preferred an all-Ireland side, by which presumably they mean other than the one that already exists as referred above. I imagine the latter has almost 100% support
Of course the question always specifies or implies that such a change would be with the agreement of NI fans, rather than imposed on the nasty bigots. Which is obviously a non-starter: we aren't going to agree to our team's disappearance. Respondents with any knowledge of the issue must realise this, but would rather play dumb than admit to their own bias

I imagine it's the latter. The average Joe on the Cabinteely omnibus has no problem with Scotland, Wales or the Faroes having their own teams

Fair enough, if I was asked that question, I'd probably answer yes also, but wouldn't see it as removing the NI team, so the poll doesn't explicity infer that the respondents don't want a NI football team.
Personally I don't have any problem with the existence of the NI team and seriously doubt the majority of Irish supporters do either.

Fair enough, if I was asked that question, I'd probably answer yes also, but wouldn't see it as removing the NI team, so the poll doesn't explicity infer that the respondents don't want a NI football team.
Personally I don't have any problem with the existence of the NI team and seriously doubt the majority of Irish supporters do either

There's already an 'All Ireland' team that we all recognise. That poll is asking people about something different- ie quite clearly ONLY the AI team representing players from NI. So by association no more NI team. It should be easy to grasp.

As I may have mentioned on here before, people thinking like this fall into three broad groups

a) bored stirrers

b) daydreaming Shinners

c) simpletons who think merging 2 mediocre teams will provide a World beater almost by definition

I know you don't have a problem, but if 73% of the populationin a wide survey say otherwise you have to admit you may be untypical (and of course those of us who frequent semi anonymous chat boards aren't typical of 'fans' generally)

That poll is asking people about something different- ie quite clearly ONLY the AI team representing players from NI........

The article you linked does not state the wording of the questions asked. It says nearly three in four would like to see a merger and 73% would support an all-Ireland team. That reads as if they are using the same 73% figure to make two claims; ie 73% would like to see a merger and 73% would support a merger. They are not the same thing.

Seamas O'Reilly was on the Second Captains podcast to discuss this point (along with Alistair Campbell's new book). Whilst being an Ireland supporter from Derry he was quite balanced in his assessment. I think the conclusion drawn from the conversation between him and Ken Earley was that Michael O'Neill should have known better with the loaded insinuations he was making and should have known more than better that identifying a lad from up North as Catholic is as inter-changeable with Nationalist.

Listened to that last night. Seamy is an old friend of mine from St. Columb's College in Derry. I mightn't have been as balanced, but he spoke well. He pointed out that the GFA has nothing to do with it, mentioned the 1956 legislation and emphasised that it's an issue of player choice. Although the GFA may have enhanced confidence or assertiveness (or perhaps even awareness of rights) within northern nationalism, I do think Ken Early gave it a bit too much credit in terms of its influence over this matter. The game-changer really in terms of northern players declaring for the FAI was FIFA's universal introduction in 2004 of a right for dual or multi-eligible players under the age of 21 to switch association once, as that allowed players who would otherwise have been cap-tied due to appearances for IFA youth teams to now switch, so long as they hadn't played for the IFA at senior competitive level. The age-cap of 21 was lifted altogether in 2009.

Originally Posted by ifk101

The article you linked does not state the wording of the questions asked. It says nearly three in four would like to see a merger and 73% would support an all-Ireland team. That reads as if they are using the same 73% figure to make two claims; ie 73% would like to see a merger and 73% would support a merger. They are not the same thing.

Exactly. And saying that you'd like to see a single united team - as an ideal or aspiration where both sides would come together voluntarily - isn't the same thing as saying the NI team should be abolished against the wishes of its own supporters.

I do think Ken Early gave it a bit too much credit in terms of its influence over this matter. The game-changer really in terms of northern players declaring for the FAI was FIFA's universal introduction in 2004 of a right for dual or multi-eligible players under the age of 21 to switch association once, as that allowed players who would otherwise have been cap-tied due to appearances for IFA youth teams to now switch, so long as they hadn't played for the IFA at senior competitive level. The age-cap of 21 was lifted altogether in 2009

Agreed. I know KE from the WSC forum and I don't remember him ever mentioning that 2004 change

And saying that you'd like to see a single united team - as an ideal or aspiration where both sides would come together voluntarily - isn't the same thing as saying the NI team should be abolished against the wishes of its own supporters

Is there any room to join the pair of ye on that pinhead? I've already covered the distinction you draw- playing dumb to avoid admitting a bias.